Cochineal has customers seeing red

By

-

September 24, 2012

Weighing the pros and cons of bug-based food dyes
By Kristina Charania
Photos by Theresa B

In March, bug-derived cochineal extract was discovered as a dye used to color the coffee-giant’s Strawberry n’ Creme Frappucinos, Strawberry Smoothies, Blended Strawberry Lemonade, and various pink-dyed pastries in order to give it the homogenous rosy hue that real strawberries couldn’t replicate. This revelation served as a kick in the pants to both the company and their loyal (and incredibly enraged) vegan customers. Upon evaluation and mass media coverage of this messy situation, Starbucks U.S. president Cliff Burrows released a statement assuring customers that the company would phase out the extract in favour of lycopene, a natural tomato-based dye.

Before ridiculing Starbucks’s lack of common sense, one must realize that there are many legitimate defenses of their use of the extract.
While the idea of crushing 70,000 beetles and devouring the resulting pound of concentrated bug guts sounds like a fantastical lunch from a Tim Burton movie, cochineal extract is highly unlikely to cause your body any harm. The World Health Organization has reported cases of asthma and anaphylaxis (a fancy term for a lethal type of allergic reaction) resulting from the hidden allergens and leftover ammonia in ingested bug-derived dyes. However, cochineal extract cases are few and far in between, and rarely severe. Health Canada has hence approved the additive for use in commercial products ranging from lipsticks and eye shadows to candies, alcoholic drinks, dessert cherries and jams. If you’ve popped a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon lately and haven’t keeled over in a coughing fit, you should be in the clear.

If Starbucks were truly indifferent to their customers’ health, they would likely have turned to an artificial substance like Allura Red (also known as FD&C Red 40) to colour their foods instead of a bug-based dye. Allura Red cannot be easily dismissed as safe. According to a pamphlet from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Allura Red has been directly connected to the development of hyperactivity in kids and proven to damage DNA in mice. P-Cresidine is a carcinogenic component of Allura Red, and has caused several types of carcinomas in both sexes of mice in controlled laboratory settings. This makes the dye harmful to people of all ages and can have permanent effects on the mental development of children, which is likely irreversible.

Let’s move on to the best news of all: the synthetic dye is derived from petroleum — that should raise your red flags — and used by major companies like Kraft, Heinz, and Coca Cola to dye their products. You would have to boycott tons of mass-produced red or pink foods in order to avoid the dye’s inescapable death grip on your organs.
Bottom line, folks: Starbucks may have lied to consumers and disappointed the vegan community, but they certainly picked the lesser evil by choosing a relatively harmless, natural dye over a synthetic additive that has the potential to affect everyone that consumes it. Avoiding the problems caused by synthetic dyes should certainly nullify the nastiness of sipping on bug juice, if not completely eradicate it.

And, on the bright side: throwing your Allura-dyed Maraschino cherries at people you dislike instead of eating them yourself is more fun anyway.

Keep it legal, keep it safe

By

EIC

-

September 24, 2012

2

Counter-point: Motion 312 questions women’s rights to bodily self-governance
To see point, click here!
By Stephanie Boulding

Motion 312 is unconstitutional. In all the wrangling over “reopening the abortion debate,” this fact has slipped by the wayside.

The Canadian Supreme Court cases Tremblay v. Daigle (1989) and R. v. Sullivan (1991) together form a solid legal basis for the assertion that a fetus is not a legal person; together with R. v. Morgentaler (1988) they secure Canadian women’s right to bodily self-governance.

Section Seven of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms asserts that “[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person.” Proponents of Motion 312 allege that an unborn fetus has the same rights as legal persons and ought to be accorded them. However, another Supreme Court case — Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General)(1989)— unanimously held that the question of a fetus’s right to life under Section Seven was “moot” and that the claimant (Borowski) had lost his standing before the Court.

Of particular note is the timing of both Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General) and Tremblay v. Daigle. Borowski, in March of that year, was faced with the Appeals Court ruling that the fetus was not entitled to Charter rights, but declined to issue judgment, deeming the case moot. Tremblay v. Daigle, in November, saw the Supreme Court take the unanimous decision that a fetus had no legal standing as a “person” in Canadian law.

Limiting a woman’s right to abortion infringes severely upon her lawful right to “security of . . . person,” to which she is absolutely entitled. For this reason (but not only this reason), Woodworth’s proposal is violently unconstitutional. He knows it, I know it, you know it. And yet, Woodworth wishes to “reopen the debate.”
There is no reopening of this debate. It was closed in 1988, twice more in 1989, and once further in 1991. Even Stephen Harper has said that “as long as [he is] prime minister, we will not reopen the debate on abortion.” Woodworth’s motion is guaranteed to fail in the House, but as a piece of agenda-setting, it succeeds admirably. Woodworth has managed to tell Canada that we have a debate on abortion rights; this is patently untrue.

What’s more, it’s dangerous. By defining a fertilized egg as a “person” under Canadian law, Woodworth’s motion would needlessly criminalize several things Canadians take for granted. The IUD, or intrauterine device, an efficient form of birth control, would become illegal. So would in-vitro fertilization. The morning-after pill would be a memory. It’s also not hard to draw the line from motion 312 to the pill being illegal, as well as other forms of hormonal birth control.

And what of women who miscarry? Would they be forced to take part in criminal investigations, primary suspects in the murder cases of their own child-to-be? Motion 312 is an unconstitutional attack on women’s rights, and regardless of your beliefs on what constitutes a “person,” you must conclude that motion 312 is an unconstitutional attack on the personal liberty of Canadian women, and we must not stand for it.

Who’s afraid of science?

By

EIC

-

September 24, 2012

1

Point: Do the latest scientific findings have libbers thinking Conservative thoughts?
To see counter-point, click here!
By Suzana Kovacic

In a press release in early June, Kennedy Stewart, member of parliament for Burnaby-Douglas and NDP critic for science and technology, made the following statement: “A government that truly respects accountability should not be afraid of dissenting views and should not try to silence evidence brought forward by Canadian scientists.” The press release further reminded Canadians that “without a comprehensive understanding of scientific evidence, major environmental, social and economic decisions will be made based on ideology instead of fact.”

Stephen Woodworth, conservative MP for Kitchener Centre, has heard the challenge, and put forward a motion to seek scientific evidence to inform Parliament. One would assume that the more progressive parliamentarians across the political spectrum would support the motion. Certainly, scientists and other academics across Canada would applaud this effort. Instead, Mr. Woodworth’s motion is being vilified and attacked by otherwise scientifically open-minded Canadians. Why? Because Motion 312 put forward by Mr. Woodworth is seeking scientific evidence to examine a Criminal Code provision that states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. His motion will be presented for a vote on Sept. 26.

Science allows us to define what constitutes an individual human being from its earliest moment of existence. Scientific research has established that a fertilized human egg is a human being. The single-celled human embryo has the unique property of being “totipotent.” As the name implies, this single cell exhibits total potential and has the capacity to differentiate into all the specialized cells that make up a living being including the extraembryonic tissues necessary to support development. The totipotent cell therefore develops as an organism and is a self-contained entity with all the signals that drive development of the organism arising entirely from within the cell. As development unfolds, the embryo undergoes multiple rounds of cell division progressing from a single-cell to a two- four- and eight-cell stage of embryonic development. Throughout these early stages of development, the individual cells of the developing embryo exhibit totipotency. The fascinating consequence of this is that if one were to pluck apart a four-cell embryo and place the four totipotent cells in a nourishing environment in a petri dish, each of those four cells would develop as four individual organisms.

As the embryo proceeds past the eight-cell stage of development, the individual embryonic cells lose totipotency and become “pluripotent.” As the name implies, pluripotent cells have the capacity to become many different types of specialized cells, but a degree of irreversible differentiation has occurred. The cells have differentiated into one of two lineages – those that will continue development as the organism and those that will continue development as the extraembryonic tissues such as the placenta. Pluripotent cells, therefore, cannot develop into a fetal or adult organism because they lack the ability to organize into an embryo. If one were to attempt the same experiment and pluck apart a 16-cell embryo into individual pluripotent cells, each cell would grow as a pluripotent cell, but not as an organism. Totipotency is therefore the characteristic marking the existence of an individual organism. Scientifically speaking, an individual human being exists whenever a totipotent human cell is created.

A discussion of the scientific definition of human being seems non-threatening, yet many Canadians feel threatened by the prospect that such evidence may be aired in Parliament. Are the realities posed by the scientific evidence so terrifying to Canadians that parliamentarians should not even consider it? Sometimes science presents truths that are inconvenient, but should inconvenience be a reason to avoid discussion?

Perhaps Canadians and our parliamentarians would be more open-minded to hearing scientific evidence if they understood what Motion 312 would and would not accomplish. Motion 312 would not criminalize or restrict abortion in Canada, nor would it grant human rights or personhood status to unborn children. If Motion 312 passes, a group of 12 members of parliament, both pro-life and pro-choice, representing the different parties would meet and engage in a reasoned discussion of a provision in the Criminal Code. They would hear expert evidence and propose answers to the questions posed by Motion 312. Ultimately, the Committee’s findings would be non-binding. However, the members of the Committee would have engaged in a thoughtful discussion on what is human life and when it begins.

Is this so terrifying?

Suzana Kovacic holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry and is studying towards a master’s degree in bioethics.

The hero Canadians deserve

By

EIC

-

September 24, 2012

0

Why Terry Fox is the perfect candidate for the World’s Best Canadian award

By David Dyck
Photos by Mark Burnham

What is Terry Fox famous for? No, it’s not a joke, you jerk. Of course, you probably know that he contracted cancer, lost a leg, and that despite his disability he attempted to run across Canada to raise money for cancer research. Oh, and of course he went to SFU; we’ve all walked by that statue in the AQ.

What I mean is: why him specifically?

I once had a professor who said that in Canada, we have no heroes. When it comes to nations’ origin stories, England has King Arthur, France has Joan of Arc, America has George Washington, Ireland has — well, you get the idea: heroic, idealized people who give a nation a personality to get behind. For many of these countries, it’s an important factor in the way that they think about nationalism. But here in Canada, we have no such uniting figure.

“What about General James Wolfe?” you might ask, genuinely indignant at something you read in your student paper. “He won the Battle of the Plains of Abraham in 1759, defeating Montcalm and the French forever!” You’re right, it seems like a seminal part of our Canadian history, and while it did have a profound and lasting impact on Canada, French is still one of our national languages. And if you’re from Quebec, you’re more than likely a Montcalm fan anyways. If you have First Nations heritage, you might have prominent historical figures of your own. Louis Riel, hailed as a Metis revolutionary, was hung as a traitor, and the court of public opinion still hasn’t settled that one. If you’re an immigrant to Canada, that’s a whole other can of worms: you bring your heroes with you. There isn’t a lot of continuity or common history. We often disagree with each other about which heroes are really heroic, when we bother to think of heroes at all.

“Canadians are skeptical,” said my professor. “We look at something that’s meant to be impressive and ask, ‘So what? Anyone could do that.’ ” And it seems true, in a way. How do we annually remember Terry Fox’s achievement? By mimicking it ourselves. Canadian consciousness was born and raised with this attitude of skepticism, of eliminating everyone’s heroes so that we don’t offend others. We call that “being polite.”

Why we remember Terry Fox is less about Terry Fox himself and more about relating to his values. His display of compassion, patience, and perseverance showed what we as Canadians consider some of our strongest assets. Also, fighting cancer is a great cause. Almost everyone has seen that horrible disease in some form or another in their lives, as young as many of us are, and as far as I know, there aren’t any cancer advocacy groups you risk offending.

It’s a great story, and no one gets mad.

Campus Shorts: Sept 24, 2012

By

EIC

-

September 24, 2012

0

McFogg the Dog eats small amount of chocolate

Tragedy struck early last weekend when beloved SFU mascot McFogg the dog was discovered to have ingested over one-third of a Hershey’s ® chocolate bar. Sidney Jackson, McFogg’s handlers describes the circumstances

“I . . . I only left him for a second; I had to pick up some requisition forms from the main office. But when I got back I saw him sitting there, chewing away at the chocolate bar. I was horrified. I knocked it out of his paws and tried to induce vomiting, but I must have spooked him. He took off like a rocket. Oh god, It should’ve been me. It should’ve been me!”

Half an hour later, students spotted McFogg stumbling around the A.Q. gardens in a daze. He failed to put up a fight, as Security loaded him in a refrigerator-sized pet carrier. McFogg is currently under observation in intensive at Burnaby General. Our prayers are with him.

— Mandy Mandelbaum

Guy takes Terry Fox Run way too seriously

The Terry Fox Run, an annual cancer-awareness fundraiser commemorating the eponymous Canadian hero, was marred last Tuesday by the hyper-competitiveness of one 4th year business student Marshal Klein.

Onlookers report that Klein, dressed in a friction-reducing body suit and a pair of wraparound sunglasses, was waiting starting line in Convocation Mall several hours before the beginning of the 4.4 km charity fun-run.

3rd-year communications major, Alexis Travelle, one of the dozens of student volunteers setting up water stations describes what she saw. “Oh, yeah that guy, I spotted him trying to talk to people while running in place, he kept asking about their carbo-loading schedule or what the moisture-wicking efficacy of their clothing was. Fucking weirdo. ”

At press time, Klein is doing forward lunges behind of the fountain, while loudly telling himself to “Grind it out.“

— Lynn Lindburgh

Something filmed at SFU that you will never watch

Reports coming out of SFU Burnaby of film crews trucking equipment around the campus, seem to indicate that something is being secretly filmed on location, that you will probably never watch.

Although initial reports were unable to ascertain whether the nature or genre of the mystery film, whether it is a romantic comedy, psychological thriller, or perhaps a sci-fi epic set in post-apocalyptic future, the fact remains that you still aren’t going to see it.

Your obvious boredom toward the subject matter is barely stymied by rumours of sightings of former Lost star Josh Holloway skulking about on campus dressed in a heavy trench coat and sunglasses. Nor is your disinterest remotely swayed by confirmation that a werewolf just burst out of a 5th story AQ window.

As of press time, you might consider torrenting it, if you can find a good seed.

— Dave Davenport

By Gary Lim

This shit is Bananas!

By

EIC

-

September 24, 2012

0

Open your mouth and say something; no one’s going to say it for you

By Rachel Braeuer

Photos by Mark Burnham

I recently went with my dad to see Big Boys Gone Bananas!*, a documentary about the Dole banana company and their campaign of censorship. I was planning on writing a review for the arts section of this paper, but I was mainly going because movie dates with my dad are an institution for us Braeuers. He suffered through every Disney movie for me; I didn’t go see Bridesmaids with my friends, I saw it with my dad. He genuinely takes an interest in the things I find interesting, and I love him endlessly for it. Another reason my dad is great is that he pushes me to do things when I’m doubting myself. My point here isn’t to brag about how well my dad and I get along; it’s to remind you that sometimes its important to ask awkward questions and not be afraid to take a stand and make your voice heard, even if it makes you feel like a social pariah. After the movie, I mentioned how I was thinking about possibly interviewing one of the producers, Bart Simpson. My dad told me to do it, to which I replied, “No, let’s just go,” he sat down on a bench, silently indicating that we weren’t leaving until I did.

After watching Big Boys Gone Bananas!* I realized that it wasn’t something to be dissected and analyzed for an arts review. I should have known better; it’s a documentary, not a film per se. Its subject matter is too important to students at a research university and at a student newspaper not to talk about it, though. The film details events that the producers of Bananas!* experienced: they made a movie about a lawyer that was representing 12 Nicaraguan banana plantation employees in a battle against Dole Food. Dole had allegedly used a banned pesticide that caused sterility among workers (among other health consequences). The corporate entity used its weight to get the documentary pulled from the Los Angeles Film Festival and effectively made it un-releasable in North America. Even journalists at small local or internet-based publications received letters from Dole’s lawyers, offering interviews around the clock to let them know about their side of the story. I won’t spoil the ending, but I will say that the turning point in the legal battle would’ve made Yurtle the Turtle very happy. This film is for anyone looking to have their faith in an individual’s potential to affect change, and the power of grassroots media and communication restored. That brings me back to my real point.

In the film, Simpson makes a comment about the producers’ plans to release the film in Canada, and his doubt that that would be possible. Simpson is a Vancouverite best known for his role in the making of The Corporation. He was at the Vancity theatre that night as a guest and headed a round of Q&A with the audience after the film. Afterwards, I asked him to comment on the remark he made in the film doubting that a film like Bananas!* would make it in Canada, after it had been bullied out of the States. He admitted that he immediately regretted saying it. “I don’t want to live in a world where it’s not possible, because of course it’s possible for positive change to happen,” he said. “It starts with somebody’s idea, then all we have to do is get enough people together to go from sentiment to action, and right now, I think the greatest threat to democracy is apathy.” As much as the film spoke to me as someone marginally involved in journalism, this comment resonated with me the most.

When I came into my position as opinions editor a very short while ago, I naively assumed everyone wanted their voice to be heard and represented in the media as much as I did. I was wrong. The responses I’ve experienced from people I’ve asked to contribute have been shocking. Many responses are along the lines of “I can’t write; I’m an econ/psych/bio/whatever major,” etc. Even more terrifying, though, is the response, “I’m too busy.” As students at a research university that has as radical a past as SFU, we should know better. This is a student newspaper. Its sole purpose is to represent the views of the student community, regardless of major and regardless of political leanings or personal views. If you are a student, your thoughts are relevant, end of story. The idea that we’re too busy is terrifying, because I think it’s just a way of hiding our apathy towards the future and our fear of actually being heard. To be honest, that’s really why I wasn’t as involved with the newspaper as I wanted to be until I got this position.

If we want to have a say in how our world evolves, we’re going to have to open our mouths and say something, because silence won’t ensure our rights anytime soon. “I think it’s totally possible to impact change,” said Simpson as he concluded our micro-interview. “You just have to believe that it will happen and do the work, which is sometimes the hardest part.” That’s the real takeaway. Whether it’s submitting an article to the paper, getting involved in a campus organization, or delving into research to seek new knowledge, we all need to start putting in the work and opening our mouths; no one else is going to do it for us.

Petter Watch: Sept 24, 2012

By

EIC

-

September 24, 2012

0

Petter ponders own existence after not seeing a Petter Watch in last week’s Peak Humour

Listless: Dishes way, way, worse than shark fin soup that haven’t been banned yet

By

EIC

-

September 24, 2012

0

If you’ve had your ear to the ground over the last few weeks, you might have heard of the recent shark fin soup debate; with some calling for a city-wide ban and others arguing it is a culturally important dish to the Asian community.

Now when it comes to hot button issues like this, we at The Peak are committed to bringing you, the latest, most up-to-date utterly irrelevant information. So we present for your reading pleasure:

Dishes way, way, worse than shark fin soup that haven’t been banned yet